Argh! That's some sed coolness :)
Chris
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:46:12PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
If you have huge plain text dumps, and just want to restore one table
it's usually painful. Attached is a small shell script that can take a
plain
Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
My guess: a fork in the future.
Regards, Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
uninten
if you write a (warning incoming buzz-word) web-based front-end, it
wouldn't have to be operating system specific, so why not use PGP for
a middle layer and use XML (define an XML schema first) to pass
information to a DHTML (javascript, XHTML, CSS) front-end. I have
implemented this design with a
hello,
consider a sample table:
create table item (id serial, parent_id int, path varchar(256));
"id" is a unique identifier of each row,
"parent_id" is an id of another row in the same table or null
what is the right way in postgresql to ensure that the "path" field of
a given row is a prefix
I use PostgeSQL less than year. Before I worked with MS SQL Server
2000, MySQL 3&4, Oracle8i and Interbase. Also, I studied standards
SQL:1999 and SQL:2003. So, after switching to PostgreSQL I've
encountered with several things that seem strange to me. Of course,
several of them are simply not impl
I believe you have a design problem. It seems to me that you need two tables;
one with (id, path) and the other with (parent_id, path). Then you can use an
UPDATE trigger on item which checks for a change in path. If it has changed,
then you can update all those records in table "item2" where it
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 03:32:00PM +0400, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> http://chernowiki.ru/Dev/PostgreSQLComparedWithSQL2003AndOracleSQLServerDB2Etc
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong with some issues - any comments are welcome.
The only thing I can comment on is updatable views. You can make
updatable views
On 08/10/05, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 03:32:00PM +0400, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> > http://chernowiki.ru/Dev/PostgreSQLComparedWithSQL2003AndOracleSQLServerDB2Etc
> >
> > Perhaps I'm wrong with some issues - any comments are welcome.
>
> The only thing I can comme
On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather
[Please copy the mailing list on replies so others can participate
in and learn from the discussion.]
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 11:16:08AM +0400, Ilja Golshtein wrote:
> I started to believe SELECT ... FOR SHARE is the remedy for my
> problems. Unfortunately it is not till I cannot combine share an
Title: RE: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
(This is via Exchange Web client, I apologize in advance for any htmlitudeiness of this message)
What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the commercially licen
On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
Bruce Momjian schrieb:
Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
My guess: a fork in the future.
This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as i
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> >> Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
> >
> > http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
> >
> > InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
> >
> > My guess: a fork in the future.
>
On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that t
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 06:05:29PM +0400, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 08/10/05, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > The only thing I can comment on is updatable views. You can make
> > updatable views using RULEs. The only thing is that they're not
> > *automatically* updateable.
>
> OK, I'll m
> On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
>
> > They have collation and multiple characterset per
table and etc. which actually is from 4.1 (not new in
5.0), and postgresql have only one collation per
database cluster :-(
> > Otherwise I think their features are all there,
but cannot be used
Hi
That is terrific news being a former employee of MySQL - Oracle buys
Innobase. I was never a fan of MySQL, personally but when Marten Mikos and
the rest of the business wonks joined the Company I knew then it was time
to get out. I met the author of Innobase once at the first MySQL employee
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
Maybe Oracle will buy Sleepycat too, and foreclose that option ;-)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to
brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to en
Bruce, Aly,
> > Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL shine even more. Maybe we
> > may also see some @sun.com contributers, okay that maybe wishful
> > thinking.
>
> I have seen @sun.com posters already, so it has started.
Actually, the Sun folks have been contributing indirectly for a while
On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:04 PM, CSN wrote:
AFAIK MySQL's fulltext indexing is only supported on
MyIsam tables, so if you want to use it, you lose
ACID,
For me, the fact that to use a feature means one needs to give up
ACIDity ends any debate on which DB to choose, and I'm not even a power
user
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the
> code in their base. So
El Sáb 08 Oct 2005 18:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> > commercially licensed version,
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 08:21:31PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:07:47AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:47:26AM +0300, WireSpot wrote:
> > > But... will the resulting dump be consistent as far as foreign
> > > keys are concerned? Or will the curr
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:22:23PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 08:21:31PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:07:47AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:47:26AM +0300, WireSpot wrote:
> > > > But... will the resulting dump be c
On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
MySQL owns their code so they can release it with wha
Neil Conway wrote:
> "SELECT column alias, ...": this is a known issue. AFAIK it is not
> easy to solve.
It's easy to solve. There's even a patch linked from the page.
I seem to remember that some (versions of some?) other SQL
implementation did not *allow* the AS there, complicating matters fo
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> > commercially lice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
> commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
> GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
> What am I missing?
MySQL AB wants to make money by selling non-GPL versions
On 10/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
> commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
> GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
They can only do the GPL stuff in the GPL-lice
On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
> commercial MySQL.
For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a
commercial license while incorporating 3rd party GPL works, without
the express permission of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
>> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
>> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What am I missing?
[ many answers ]
Ahhh ... I did not realize they were selling a commercial version with
a dual license. I had thought they were selling support contracts.
I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
>> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
>> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Fetter) writes:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 08:21:31PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:07:47AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:47:26AM +0300, WireSpot wrote:
>> > > But... will the resulting dump be consistent as far as fore
On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
commercial MySQL.
For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a
commercial license while incorporating 3rd p
> All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy
> Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the
> transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL
> didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal.
Maybe they didn't think it was necessary. I
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Mike Nolan wrote:
All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy
Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the
transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL
didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal.
Maybe they didn'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> [ many answers ]
>
> Ahhh ... I did not realize they were selling a commercial version with
> a dual license. I had thought they were selling support contracts.
>
> I confe
On 10/8/05, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use PostgeSQL less than year. Before I worked with MS SQL Server
> 2000, MySQL 3&4, Oracle8i and Interbase. Also, I studied standards
> SQL:1999 and SQL:2003. So, after switching to PostgreSQL I've
> encountered with several things that
On Saturday 08 October 2005 17:35, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> >> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> >>
On Oct 8, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Are there any lessons to be learned from this with regards to
PostgreSQL?
Like Marc said, doesn't seem to be a worry to the Postgres community .
. .
Unless this is all really an Oracle ploy to grab the competition to the
their real fut
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why someone wouild want
> to distribute their own private label version of MySQL, unless they
> were making significant changes, and then I can't see why anyone
> would want to buy such a version.
The suits do this for peace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Thomas F. O'Connell") writes:
> On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
>>> commercial MySQL.
>>
>> For that matter, I'm not sure they can
On Oct 8, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK (and
you're
welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong) SAPdb supports
transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case MySQL AB might be
in a
position to offer
possible bug :
pg_dump does not include ALTER DATABASE ... SET search_path TO ...
pg_dumpall does include it.
pg_dump only includes the runtime "SET search_path", but not the permanent ALTER DATABASE part
is this intentional?
Miles Keaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pg_dump does not include ALTER DATABASE ... SET search_path TO ...
> pg_dumpall does include it.
This is per design; it holds for all ALTER DATABASE properties not
just search_path.
regards, tom lane
---(e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK
> (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong)
> SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case
> MySQL AB might be in a position to offer the b
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the
> features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories
> available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the
> minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be
I'm stuck on a brain-teaser with CONSTRAINT:
Imagine a table like "lineitems" in a bookstore - where you don't need
an ISBN to be unique because a book will be in buying history more
than once.
But you DO need to make sure that the ISBN number is ONLY matched to
one book name - NOT to more than o
On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> > Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK
> > (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong)
> > SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If t
how about using 2 tables with according unique/primary key constraints and a
view to actually access the data (mixing the 2 tables into one) ?
On Saturday 08 October 2005 22:36, Miles Keaton wrote:
> I'm stuck on a brain-teaser with CONSTRAINT:
>
> Imagine a table like "lineitems" in a bookstor
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 22:36 -0700, Miles Keaton wrote:
> ... both isbn and name MUST be in the table, and what I'm
> trying to do is put a CONSTRAINT on the table definition to protect
> against user error, by making sure that any entered isbn is only tied
> to one book-name in that table.
Create
53 matches
Mail list logo
